[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3624-3629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1653]



[[Page 3623]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant Disposal Phase; Notice



Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management 
Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 3624]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant Disposal Phase

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is issuing this 
record of its decision to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste at the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located 2,100 
feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad, New 
Mexico. Under this decision, DOE will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic 
meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste generated by defense 
activities at WIPP after preparation (i.e., treatment, as necessary, 
including packaging) to meet WIPP's waste acceptance criteria. This 
waste includes TRU waste accumulated in aboveground storage since 1970 
and TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years. 
This waste does not include TRU waste commingled with polychlorinated 
biphenyls in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts per 
million. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by truck, 
although the Department reserves the option to use commercial rail 
transportation in the future. DOE will comply with the requirements and 
waste limits in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, and the 
Consultation and Cooperation Agreement between New Mexico and the 
Department of Energy. DOE has applied for a permit from the New Mexico 
Environment Department under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
concerning mixed TRU waste (TRU waste containing radioactive and 
hazardous constituents); such a permit is not needed for disposal of 
other TRU waste at WIPP.
    Implementation of this decision is contingent upon obtaining a 
Compliance Certification from the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA recently proposed to certify that WIPP 
complies with applicable EPA requirements for TRU waste disposal (62 FR 
58792, October 30, 1997).
    This Record of Decision documents the Department's decision to 
implement the Preferred Alternative, as analyzed in the ``Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS2, September 1997) (SEIS-II). This 
Record of Decision is being issued in coordination with the preparation 
of the Record of Decision on the treatment and storage of TRU waste, 
which is based on the ``Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997) (WM PEIS). The WM PEIS 
Record of Decision will specify the DOE sites at which TRU waste will 
be prepared and stored before disposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For further information regarding WIPP SEIS-II and transuranic 
waste contact: Harold Johnson, SEIS-II Document Manager, Mail Stop 535, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Post Office Box 3090, 
Carlsbad, NM 88221, Telephone (505) 234-7349, E-Mail: 
[email protected].
    For further information on the DOE National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-
4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the mid-1940s, DOE's research and development, nuclear 
weapons production, and nuclear fuel reprocessing activities have 
produced transuranic (TRU) waste. TRU waste is waste that contains 
alpha particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than 
that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in 
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.
    TRU waste is classified according to the radiation dose rate at a 
package surface. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste has a radiation dose 
rate at a package surface of 200 millirem per hour or less; this waste 
can safely be handled directly by personnel. Remote-handled (RH) TRU 
waste has a radiation dose rate at a package surface greater than 200 
millirem per hour, and must be handled remotely (e.g., with machinery 
designed to shield workers from radiation).
    TRU waste that has both radioactive and hazardous constituents is 
known as mixed TRU waste. The hazardous component of mixed TRU waste is 
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE 
estimates that approximately 60 percent of TRU waste is mixed TRU 
waste. In addition, some TRU waste is commingled with polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts 
per million and is known as PCB commingled TRU waste. Disposal of PCBs 
is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
    Before 1970, TRU waste was disposed of in shallow land burial 
sites. Since 1970, TRU waste has been retrievably stored in aboveground 
facilities at DOE sites. Plutonium stabilization and management 
activities, environmental restoration (which could include remediation 
of sites where TRU waste was buried before 1970), decontamination and 
decommissioning, waste management, and defense testing and research are 
expected to generate additional TRU waste.
    The Department began examining the environmental impacts of TRU 
waste disposal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 
the late 1970s. After issuing the ``Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026, October 
1980), the Department decided in a 1981 Record of Decision to begin 
phased development of WIPP to demonstrate the safe disposal of TRU 
waste in bedded salt. Consequently, the Department has, since 1981, 
been preparing to dispose of and isolate TRU waste by emplacing it in 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located 
2,100 feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad, 
New Mexico. The major construction activities at WIPP have been 
completed. WIPP consists of the Waste Handling Building where waste 
would be received and inspected, an underground disposal area, and a 
waste handling shaft for transfer of waste from the surface to the 
disposal area. WIPP was designed for a total capacity of 175,600 cubic 
meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste.
    In 1990, after issuing the ``Final Supplement Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS, 
January 1990), DOE issued a Record of Decision that continued the 
phased development of WIPP by instituting an experimental program to 
further examine WIPP's suitability as a TRU waste repository. In 
September 1997, DOE issued the ``Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal 
Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-
0026-FS2) (SEIS-II), which analyzes the environmental impacts of 
proposed disposal operations at WIPP. The Department has prepared this 
Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality 
Regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508) and the Department of Energy regulations implementing NEPA (10 
CFR part 1021).

[[Page 3625]]

    While SEIS-II was prepared to inform DOE's decision on whether to 
open WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste, the ``Waste Management 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997) 
(WM PEIS) was prepared to inform DOE's decision on where to treat 
(which includes packaging) and store TRU waste prior to disposal. In 
the WM PEIS, DOE examined several TRU waste treatment and storage site 
consolidation strategies (i.e., whether to treat and store TRU waste at 
the DOE sites where it is generated, at a few regional DOE sites, or at 
a centralized DOE site). In coordination with this WIPP Record of 
Decision, DOE is separately preparing a Record of Decision, supported 
by the WM PEIS, that specifies whether, and if so, where, to 
consolidate TRU waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The Department needs to safely dispose of the TRU waste that has 
accumulated at DOE sites and to provide for the disposal of additional 
TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years (through 
approximately 2033) in a manner that protects public health and the 
environment. DOE prepared SEIS-II in order to help DOE make the 
following decisions:
     Whether to open and operate WIPP for the disposal of TRU 
waste, and, if so,
     Which portions of the TRU waste inventory would be 
disposed of,
     To what minimum level TRU waste must be treated for 
disposal, and
     What mode of transportation would be used to transport TRU 
waste to WIPP.

WIPP Operation

    With respect to the decision on whether to open WIPP, SEIS-II 
examines the environmental impacts of four alternatives that involve 
operating the facility (the Proposed Action and other Action 
Alternatives) and the impacts of two alternatives that involve 
dismantling and closing WIPP and continuing storage of TRU waste at the 
generating sites (the No Action Alternatives).

Waste Inventories

    SEIS-II uses the most recent inventory data available for its 
analysis, including data from ``The National Transuranic Waste 
Management Plan,'' (DOE/NTP-96-1204, Revision 0, September 1996)(TRU 
Waste Management Plan). Using these data, SEIS-II examines the 
environmental impacts of disposing of different inventories of TRU 
waste. For purposes of analysis in SEIS-II, the DOE TRU waste inventory 
is divided into a Basic Inventory and an Additional Inventory. The 
Basic Inventory consists of (1) TRU waste generated by defense 
activities (defense waste) that has been placed in retrievable storage 
since 1970 and (2) defense TRU waste that would continue to be 
generated over approximately the next 35 years as a result of plutonium 
stabilization and management activities, environmental restoration 
(including remediation of some sites where defense TRU waste was buried 
before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management, 
and defense testing and research. The Basic Inventory volume (per 
recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 170,000 cubic 
meters (6 million cubic feet). The Additional Inventory consists of 
commercial and non-defense waste (waste for which DOE has 
responsibility and which was generated by activities other than defense 
activities), PCB commingled TRU waste, and waste that was buried before 
1970 that is not included in the Basic Inventory (because, for example, 
DOE does not expect remediation activities to occur within 
approximately the next 35 years, or because the extent of remediation 
has not been determined). The Additional Inventory also includes non-
defense and commercial waste that DOE believes could be generated over 
approximately the next 35 years. The Additional Inventory volume (per 
recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 142,500 cubic 
meters (5 million cubic feet).
    The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended in 1996, limits the 
capacity of WIPP to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet). The 
Act also specifies that only defense TRU waste may be disposed of at 
WIPP. In addition, the Consultation and Cooperation (C&C) Agreement 
between DOE and the State of New Mexico limits the volume of RH-TRU 
waste to 7,080 cubic meters (250,000 cubic feet). Using the volume 
estimates analyzed in SEIS-II, disposal of the Basic Inventory would be 
within these limits, and disposal of the Basic Inventory and all of the 
Additional Inventory would exceed these limits.

Waste Treatment Levels

    SEIS-II examines treatment of TRU waste to three different levels 
before disposal: treatment to meet the planning basis WIPP waste 
acceptance criteria (WIPP WAC), thermal treatment to meet RCRA land 
disposal restriction (LDR) levels, and treatment by shred and grout. 
The planning basis WIPP WAC is that level of treatment and packaging in 
WIPP WAC Revision 5, with anticipated revisions as analyzed in SEIS-II. 
Treatment to planning basis WIPP WAC would require repackaging of TRU 
waste to meet transportation and disposal regulations and DOE policies. 
Treatment to LDR levels would use a thermal process that would 
substantially condense the waste and yield a vitrified or metal ingot 
waste form. Such treatment would also remove any organic hazardous 
constituents and immobilize any hazardous metals in mixed TRU waste and 
PCB commingled TRU waste. Treatment by shredding the waste and sealing 
it in grout would reduce gas generation, but would create a much larger 
waste volume. As set forth in this WIPP Record of Decision, DOE has 
concluded that waste destined for WIPP should at a minimum be prepared 
(i.e., treated as needed, and packaged) according to the planning basis 
WIPP WAC. As noted previously, in coordination with this WIPP Record of 
Decision, DOE is preparing a Record of Decision, based on the WM PEIS, 
that will specify whether, where, and to what extent to consolidate TRU 
waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.

Transportation Modes

    SEIS-II analyzes the transport of TRU waste by truck, by regular 
rail and truck (truck transportation from those sites that do not have 
rail access), and by dedicated rail and truck. Regular rail refers to 
use of commercial rail lines, with TRU waste being included on trains 
that are also carrying other types of freight. Dedicated rail would 
also use commercial rail lines, with trains composed exclusively of 
rail cars carrying TRU waste.
    The Department has investigated and continues to investigate the 
possibility of using rail transportation, but considers it less 
reasonable than truck transportation at this time. The primary factors 
that make rail transportation less reasonable are (1) limited interest 
of rail carriers in handling shipments of TRU waste, (2) the higher 
cost of dedicated rail transportation as compared to truck 
transportation, (3) the initial cost of acquiring additional transport 
containers needed for rail transportation (because three times as many 
containers are needed for each shipment), and (4) DOE's inability to 
obtain rail carrier assurance that TRU waste container transit will 
enable DOE to unseal the containers within 60 days of loading, as 
required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Regular rail 
transportation, because of its lower public health impacts and cost, is 
still

[[Page 3626]]

considered a desirable option for some waste transportation in the 
future, provided that the factors that make it currently less 
reasonable can be mitigated.

Alternatives Considered

    SEIS-II examines the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action, 
three other reasonable Action Alternatives, and two No Action 
Alternatives that involve the waste inventories and treatment levels 
described above.

1. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

    Under the Proposed Action, DOE would open WIPP and dispose of 
175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of post-1970 defense TRU 
waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste), which is the Basic Inventory 
of TRU waste adjusted up to the capacity limits specified in the WIPP 
Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. The waste would be treated 
as necessary to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC. Based on the 
inventory volume and the anticipated emplacement rate, TRU waste would 
be disposed of at WIPP over a 35-year period. Transportation would be 
by truck.
    The Department identified the Proposed Action as its Preferred 
Alternative in the final SEIS-II. Under the Preferred Alternative, TRU 
waste transportation would initially be by truck; however, the 
Department reserves the option to use commercial rail transportation of 
TRU waste in the future.
    The Proposed Action (and Preferred Alternative) would isolate TRU 
waste for more than 10,000 years and would comply with the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. However, this alternative would 
not dispose of the Additional Inventory.

2. Action Alternative 1

    Under Action Alternative 1, the Department would dispose of the 
Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled 
TRU waste) at WIPP, after treating the waste to meet the planning basis 
WIPP WAC. SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of TRU waste over the 160-year 
period needed for emplacement of this amount of waste at the 
anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental 
impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and 
operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and 
reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 60 years). SEIS-II 
analyzes transportation by truck and transportation by rail (regular 
commercial and dedicated trains).
    Action Alternative 1 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000 
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU 
waste and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not 
implement Action Alternative 1 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and 
the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. In addition, under Action 
Alternative 1, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at 
WIPP.

3. Action Alternative 2

    Under Action Alternative 2, the Department would dispose of the 
Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (including PCB commingled 
TRU waste) at WIPP after treating the waste thermally to LDR levels. 
SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of waste over the 150-year period needed 
for emplacement of this volume given thermal loading constraints and 
anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental 
impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and 
operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and 
reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 70 years). SEIS-II 
analyzes three subalternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C) that 
examine consolidated thermal treatment at DOE sites.
    Action Alternative 2 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000 
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU 
waste, PCB commingled TRU waste, and TRU waste that was buried before 
1970. DOE could not implement this alternative unless the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly.

4. Action Alternative 3

    Under Action Alternative 3, DOE would dispose of the Basic and 
Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste) 
at WIPP after treatment by a shred and grout process. SEIS-II analyzes 
the disposal of waste over the 190-year period needed for emplacement 
of this volume at the anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also 
analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the modifications to 
WIPP facilities and operations that would be needed to increase the 
emplacement rate and reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 
75 years). The impacts of both truck and rail transportation are 
analyzed.
    Action Alternative 3 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000 
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU 
wastes and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not 
implement Action Alternative 3 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and 
the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. The treatment method under 
this alternative would increase the volume of the waste to be disposed 
of, thus increasing transportation. In addition, under Action 
Alternative 3, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at 
WIPP.

5. No Action Alternative 1

    Under No Action Alternative 1, the Department would thermally treat 
the Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste and store the waste 
indefinitely in newly constructed monitored retrievable storage 
facilities. SEIS-II analyzes two subalternatives that examine the 
impacts of thermal treatment. The impacts of transporting TRU waste to 
treatment sites by both truck and rail transportation are analyzed. 
WIPP would be dismantled and closed under this alternative.
    No Action Alternative 1 would treat TRU waste to RCRA LDR levels 
and indefinitely store the treated waste. Treatment to LDR levels would 
reduce human health impacts in the event of a release of the stored 
waste. This alternative would not offer the isolation afforded by deep 
geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage 
facilities and waste repackaging, and could not be implemented without 
modification of agreements that DOE has reached with several states 
regarding the offsite disposition of TRU waste. No Action Alternative 1 
would require the use of effective institutional controls for the 
indefinite future.

6. No Action Alternative 2

    Under No Action Alternative 2, DOE would continue to store newly 
generated TRU waste at generator sites in existing or planned storage 
facilities. The newly generated waste would be treated to meet the 
planning basis WIPP WAC to facilitate safe storage; however, the waste 
form would not protect human health if the waste were released. No 
transportation is analyzed for this alternative, because the waste is 
assumed to remain indefinitely where it was generated. WIPP would be 
dismantled and closed under this alternative.
    This alternative would not involve impacts to workers and the 
public associated with thermal or shred and grout treatment or with 
transportation. However, this alternative would not offer the isolation 
afforded by deep

[[Page 3627]]

geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage 
facilities and waste repackaging for the indefinite future, and could 
not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has 
reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU 
waste.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    In identifying its environmental preference among alternatives for 
the long-term management of TRU waste, DOE considered both near-term 
and long-term (through and beyond 10,000 years) human health and 
environmental impacts. There are alternatives that would result in low 
near-term impacts but relatively high long-term impacts, and 
identifying the environmentally preferable alternative(s) requires 
judgment concerning these impacts and sensitivity concerning the 
uncertainties of some of the near-term and long-term impacts.
    SEIS-II estimates that some potential near-term fatalities, mainly 
among workers as a result of industrial accidents from waste treatment 
operations, would occur under all alternatives. The largest number of 
potential fatalities would occur as a result of thermal treatment under 
Action Alternative 2 (up to approximately 14 fatalities) and No Action 
Alternative 1 (up to approximately 13 fatalities), and the smallest 
under No Action Alternative 2 (approximately 1 fatality), under which 
only newly generated waste would be treated. Thermal treatment may 
result in air quality exceedances for radionuclides, offsite treatment 
impacts (including fatalities), and, for thermal treatment at WIPP 
(Action Alternative 2C), potentially disproportionately high and 
adverse impacts to minority and low income populations near WIPP.
    Some potential near-term fatalities also could occur from storage 
operations under all of the alternatives; a larger number of fatalities 
could occur as a result of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake 
with a small annual probability of occurring damaging an aboveground 
TRU waste storage facility. For the No Action Alternatives, however, 
the associated risks would continue for the indefinite future. Long-
term storage risks would also occur for the Additional Inventory that 
would not be disposed of under the Proposed Action and for PCB 
commingled TRU waste that would not be disposed of under Action 
Alternatives 1 and 3.
    Transportation for treatment and for disposal are estimated to 
cause more fatalities (mainly involving the general public) than other 
near-term waste management operations. The largest number of fatalities 
are estimated to occur under the three Action Alternatives, in which 
the most waste would be sent to WIPP. The analysis shows, however, that 
regular commercial rail service would have lower potential fatalities 
than transportation by either dedicated rail service or by truck. The 
consequences of low probability accidents would be similar for all 
transportation options. In contrast, the No Action Alternatives would 
pose little to no transportation risk, depending on the alternative, 
but would not dispose of the waste.
    Thus, SEIS-II analyses show that, in the near term, No Action 
Alternative 2 would be environmentally preferable. For the long term, 
however, disposal of as much of DOE's TRU waste as possible at WIPP is 
environmentally preferable to indefinite storage, because disposal 
isolates the waste and avoids the long-term need to protect the public 
and workers from exposure to stored waste, a protection than cannot be 
assured over the long periods of time that TRU waste poses a health 
hazard to the public. The long-term impacts of indefinite storage of 
TRU waste under No Action Alternative 2 and, to a lesser extent, No 
Action Alternative 1, would result primarily from future exposures to 
stored waste should DOE lose institutional control of the storage 
facilities in the future. Over the long term, there would also be an 
increasing probability of adverse impacts from a natural disaster. Such 
impacts could be exacerbated by future population growth near DOE 
sites. SEIS-II analyses show that there is virtually no benefit to 
long-term repository performance from thermal or shred and grout 
treatment of waste as compared to treatment to meet the planning basis 
WIPP WAC.
    Considering both near-term and long-term impacts, therefore, Action 
Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferable alternative, with 
transportation of waste by regular commercial rail service to the 
maximum extent possible to lessen near-term impacts. Action Alternative 
1 would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU waste (with 
the exception of PCB commingled TRU waste) and TRU waste that was 
buried prior to 1970, after treatment as necessary to meet the planning 
basis WIPP WAC. This alternative would dispose of a greater amount of 
TRU waste than the Proposed Action.

Comments on SEIS-II and Agency Responses

    SEIS-II was initiated by a notice of intent published in the 
Federal Register on August 18, 1995. A draft SEIS-II was issued in 
November 1996, and public hearings were held in January 1997. 
Approximately 4,000 comments were received from individuals, 
organizations, states, tribes, and Federal agencies during the 90-day 
comment period. Many of the comments received on the draft SEIS-II 
expressed strong opinions in favor of or against disposal at WIPP, or 
suggested revisions to SEIS-II. The final SEIS-II, issued in September 
1997, incorporated many changes in response to public comments and 
internal review, including updating of waste volumes, TRU waste 
locations, and the long-term performance assessment.
    The Department received four letters on the final SEIS-II. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 letter stated that the 
agency had completed its review and had no further comments on the 
final SEIS-II. The State of Tennessee's Department of Environment and 
Conservation, the State of Idaho Oversight Program, and the Southwest 
Research and Information Center submitted comments which the Department 
has considered.
    In its comments, the DOE Oversight Division of the Tennessee 
Department of Environment and Conservation requested clarification of 
responses provided in SEIS-II regarding: (1) Consolidation of TRU waste 
at sites prior to being shipped to WIPP, (2) management of ``special 
case'' waste, (3) management of the excess inventory of RH-TRU waste if 
WIPP's capacity is reached, and (4) plans and schedules for 
transporting TRU waste to WIPP. In addition, the State asked DOE to 
provide assurance in the Record of Decision that RH-TRU waste will be 
removed from DOE's Oak Ridge site in accordance with the Oak Ridge 
Reservation Site Treatment Plan.
    Decisions regarding consolidation of TRU waste for preparation and 
storage pending disposal will be made in the Record of Decision for the 
WM PEIS. With regard to what the commenter referred to as ``special 
case'' waste, such waste that is classified as post-1970 defense TRU 
waste is included in the SEIS-II analysis as CH-TRU waste as part of 
the Basic Inventory, and under this Record of Decision upon preparation 
to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC would be disposed of at WIPP. 
Materials cited by the commenter that are not classified as TRU waste 
could not be disposed of at WIPP and are beyond the scope of SEIS-II 
and this Record of Decision. Regarding the comment about the excess 
inventory of RH-TRU waste, DOE expects that there will be sufficient 
capacity at WIPP to

[[Page 3628]]

dispose of all RH-TRU waste currently in storage and to be generated 
over approximately the next 35 years, based on the most recent 
estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. DOE's proposed 
plans and schedule for transporting waste from particular sites to WIPP 
are contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. Finally, as stated in 
SEIS-II, DOE intends to meet its obligations with regard to the 
disposition of TRU waste as set forth in the agreements (including Site 
Treatment Plans) that it has reached with states and in related court 
orders.
    The State of Idaho Oversight Program requested that the ROD be 
consistent with the agreements made with the State with regard to 
transuranic waste that will be disposed of at WIPP. As noted above, the 
Department intends to fulfill its obligations with regard to the 
disposition of TRU waste as set forth in its agreements with states and 
in related court orders.
    In its comments on the final SEIS-II, the Southwest Research and 
Information Center stated that disposal of TRU waste in a high-level 
waste repository is a reasonable alternative that was not examined in 
SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. This commenter also stated that, because all of 
the estimated TRU waste inventory would not be disposed of at WIPP, DOE 
will be required to consider additional disposal sites, and that such 
other sites were not considered in SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. Further, the 
commenter stated that DOE should prepare a comprehensive NEPA analysis 
of storage and disposal options for all of DOE's nuclear waste, 
including all TRU waste, before issuing a Record of Decision on TRU 
waste disposal at WIPP. Finally, the commenter asked for clarification 
of DOE's position regarding the opening of WIPP without a RCRA permit 
from the New Mexico Environment Department.
    The Department has examined all reasonable TRU waste disposal 
alternatives in SEIS-II and the preceding environmental impact 
statements, including disposal in a high-level waste repository and 
disposal at sites other than WIPP. DOE decided in 1981 to develop WIPP 
for the disposal of TRU waste, and SEIS-II confirms that WIPP is an 
effective disposal facility for TRU waste. The most recent waste volume 
estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan indicate that DOE 
would be able to dispose of all of the TRU waste currently in storage, 
and waste to be generated by DOE over approximately the next 35 years. 
In SEIS-II, DOE analyzes the disposal at WIPP of all defense, non-
defense, and commercial TRU waste and TRU waste that was buried prior 
to 1970. The WM PEIS comprehensively analyzes the management of all of 
DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste types. With regard to the RCRA 
permit issue, DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from the New Mexico 
Environment Department for mixed TRU waste. Such a permit is not needed 
for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.

Decision

    The Department will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2 
million cubic feet) of defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU 
waste) at WIPP. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by 
truck, although the Department reserves the option to use commercial 
rail transportation in the future. DOE will prepare (including 
treatment, as necessary, and packaging) the wastes to be disposed of to 
meet the WIPP WAC (WIPP WAC Revision 5, including any future revisions 
as analyzed in SEIS-II, such as pipe overpacks used in waste 
packaging). This decision establishes only the minimum waste acceptance 
requirements that must be met for disposal of waste at WIPP. DOE has 
treated in the past (and based on site-specific circumstances, may 
decide to treat in the future) TRU waste at some sites more extensively 
than is required under the WIPP WAC. WIPP may accept for disposal 
grouted TRU waste, thermally treated TRU waste, or TRU waste treated by 
any other process that meets the WIPP WAC.
    Under this decision, the wastes to be disposed of include both CH 
and RH defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste) placed in 
retrievable storage after 1970, and TRU waste generated for 
approximately the next 35 years by plutonium stabilization and 
management activities, environmental restoration (including defense TRU 
waste from future remediation of sites where TRU waste was buried 
before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management, 
and defense testing and research. The amount of TRU waste that will be 
disposed of at WIPP will not exceed limits established by the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. Impacts of disposal at WIPP of 
this volume of defense TRU waste are analyzed in the SEIS-II under the 
Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative).
    TRU waste will be transported to WIPP in containers certified by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as required by the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act. DOE will initially use trucks to transport waste. 
However, DOE reserves the option to use commercial rail service for TRU 
waste transportation in the future, because SEIS-II analyses show that, 
under normal operations, regular rail transportation would cause fewer 
fatalities and would cost less than truck transportation (although 
consequences of a low probability accident would be similar for all 
transportation options). In contrast, SEIS-II analyses show that 
dedicated rail shipments would cause the largest number of fatalities 
and would be the most costly transportation mode.

Basis for Decision

    The decision described above minimizes, to the extent possible 
under current statutory restrictions contained in the WIPP Land 
Withdrawal Act, the impacts and costs of continued TRU waste management 
activities at DOE sites. Disposal of TRU waste at WIPP would 
effectively isolate the waste from human contact for more than 10,000 
years if the repository remains undisturbed, and, under the Preferred 
Alternative, is not expected to adversely impact human health even if 
the repository were to be breached by drilling. For example, based on 
analyses in the WIPP SEIS-II, the probability that a member of a 
drilling crew that breached the repository would die of cancer from 
exposure to the waste is 4 in 10,000. If an intrusion occurred, 
radionuclides and heavy metals could reach the Culebra Dolomite (the 
principal water-bearing unit overlying WIPP). However, impacts would be 
negligible.
    The Department has taken into consideration irreversible and 
irretrievable commitments of resources, impacts from retrieval of waste 
from the repository, and cumulative impacts in making this decision. 
There would be irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 
associated with the use of the WIPP site resulting from residual salt 
that remains after remediation of the salt storage pile. Although DOE 
has no plans to retrieve waste from WIPP, if the waste were retrieved 
prior to repository closure, the impacts would be the same as from 
emplacing the waste. If the waste were required to be recovered after 
repository closure, there could be several worker fatalities from 
recovering waste and any contaminated salt. The impacts from 
transporting waste back to the treatment sites would be higher than 
from transporting it to WIPP because of the additional volume of 
contaminated salt. In considering cumulative impacts, DOE recognizes 
that for all alternatives involving transportation of TRU waste, there 
would be cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonable 
foreseeable

[[Page 3629]]

future activities involving transportation of other waste types 
(hazardous, low-level, low-level mixed, and high level waste). There 
would also be cumulative impacts at some of the treatment sites as a 
result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.
    DOE did not select the No Action Alternatives because they would 
not isolate TRU waste from humans and the environment, and could cause 
public harm if long-term institutional control were to be lost. 
(Although no deaths would be expected based on current population 
densities and distributions under No Action Alternative 1, intruders 
could receive doses that greatly exceed current regulatory limits; up 
to 800 deaths could occur over 10,000 years under No Action Alternative 
2). Maintaining such controls indefinitely would require future 
generations to incur risks and costs that can be avoided by disposing 
of the waste in WIPP now. In addition, the No Action Alternatives could 
not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has 
reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU 
waste.
    DOE did not select the Action Alternatives because disposal of the 
volumes and waste types involved in these alternatives would require 
modification of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. DOE 
did not select either thermal or shred and grout treatment because the 
SEIS-II analyses show that these treatments do not materially improve 
the repository's performance, and also have greater costs and near-term 
impacts across the DOE complex.
    This decision is consistent with the intent of Congress, as 
expressed in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, that DOE commence disposal 
operations at WIPP once all applicable health and safety standards and 
laws have been met. The decision will enable the Department to comply 
with the agreements that DOE has entered into with several states, 
particularly those agreements that set a schedule for removal of TRU 
waste from DOE sites.
    Implementation of the decision to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP is 
contingent on obtaining a Compliance Certification from EPA. EPA 
recently proposed to certify compliance, subject to certain conditions 
(62 FR 58792, October 30, 1997). DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from 
the New Mexico Environment Department for disposal of mixed TRU waste; 
such a permit is not needed for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.

Mitigation Measures

    DOE has a Mitigation Action Plan in effect for WIPP to reduce 
possible adverse environmental effects. DOE will continue to implement 
those actions and provide information on their status in its annual 
mitigation action reports.
    DOE will comply with applicable Department of Transportation and 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations governing the shipment of TRU 
waste. As described in SEIS-II, DOE will transport TRU waste to WIPP in 
such a manner as to alleviate, to the maximum extent possible, 
potential impacts from transportation of TRU waste over the highways. 
These measures include tracking shipments with the TRANSCOM satellite 
tracking system and maintaining constant communication with the driver 
to provide notice of adverse weather or road conditions along the 
route. Equipment will be inspected at the beginning of each shipment 
and periodically every 100 miles or every two hours while on route. If 
shipments are delayed on route, drivers will park at designated DOE or 
Department of Defense sites, or State designated parking areas if 
possible. If no such sites are available, drivers will park in areas 
away from population concentrations and notify the State Police of the 
shipment's location.
    In addition to maintaining its own emergency response capabilities, 
DOE offers emergency response training to police, fire, and medical 
personnel located along the WIPP transportation routes. In the event of 
an accident involving a WIPP shipment, the driver would notify 
emergency responders by cellular phone and also the WIPP Central 
Monitoring Room using the TRANSCOM system. A DOE official would be 
dispatched to assist at the accident site. DOE resources would be 
available to support mitigation of the accident, including but not 
limited to package recovery and site cleanup.
    The United States Department of the Interior suggested in comments 
on the draft SEIS-II that DOE should develop a spill contingency plan 
to address the potential impacts of a diesel fuel spill on fish and 
wildlife and their habitats. DOE already has plans in place to address 
the potential impacts of a truck accident; these plans address 
potential releases of TRU waste and other materials. Remediation 
efforts may include excavation and disposal of contaminated 
environmental media as appropriate.
    A copy of SEIS-II and this Record of Decision are available from 
the Center for Environmental Management Information, telephone: 1-800-
7EM-DATA (1-800-736-3282) (in Washington, D.C., call 202-863-5084).

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of January, 1998.
Elizabeth A. Moler,
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-1653 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P